navarre

England is the biggest and most populated country in Britain. I never meant too directly place England in my favour. I apologise if any confusion was caught. It also saddens me to know that people still can't distinguish between England and Britain. When I say Britain, 100% of the time I mean Britain. Not England. Britain.

Really? Well, that's funny, because I don't ever remember mentioning England. Your mis-interpretation is no fault of mine.

The Villan's notes: Take a look back at the first page. Note to self that navarre said Britain, not England. Apologise. Hope to hell navarre doesn't embarass you more.

I don't blame you. I suppose Wales (or the great bulk of it) is geographically part of the South. It is beautiful.

Thank you Mr Moderator! Would you like some tea there Mr Moderator? Love your pyjamas you're wearing Mr Moderator! The fish, seeing as everyone seems hell-bent on destroying out intriguing (yet admittedly unrelated) conversation, let's make our own thread about this. Yay or nay?

No, I have never lived in Paris, nor have any intention to live there. Their road networks are destroyed by hefty tolls you have to pay every 50 KM- and I'm very satisfied with Britain's current rail network, thanks. What, you think I'm going to move out of London just because the French have better transport? Seriously, you think Paris is better than London because their trains arrive on time? But the Midlands isn't included. O.K. Let's just pretend the Midlands don't exist. What part of the country would you rather reside in?

Only in the metaphorical sense.

Russia does not need to be divided into smaller parts. I'm all for uniting people, and irregardless of size,the Russian population is only 150 million people.

Wait. I never said I was a Christian. Assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups, as my late Father always reminded me, and you seem to be doing a lot of it. For a start, Dawkins should do some real evidence other than trawling the internet for famous aethiest quotes in which he seems to do a lot. Also, he only has a superficial knowledge of the Bible (as Christianity is the main 'victim' of his book'). You'd think for someone who's so against a Holy Book would have at least sufficient knowledge of it, but Dawkins seems to have derived all knowledge from a few Sunday School Classes. I think when he attributes the book of Hebrews' authourship to Paul is when you realise just how bad things are.

It is a book plagued by flaws, whose only appeal is to aethiests. Theists will read it but ignore it, as not serious religious person will have their views swayed by one authour. I vote for a religion thread, so lt's this drop this.

Wait, you insult London then suggest an even worse place to live in? Where's the logic in that? And for all the Midlands residents, please note this is not a 'Where do you live' thread, this is 'Which do you think is better' thread. I live in the South but I voted North. You choose which part you think is better, not where you think you live.

Amen to that.

I think for mainland Europeans learning one anther's language must be easier, seeing as they have this whole masculine/feminine thing going on.

I know... 10char

Russia, is, in my opinion, an admirable country. Following the collapse of Communism, and subsequantly half the USSR, Russia has made a fantastic recovery. But rocky relations are not the way to go. Russia is not a power to be reckoned with, and is the most powerful nation in the world, bar the US. However, another Cold War, or at least one on the scale of the previous would-be-conflict, is extremely unlikely. I doubt Russia would want to be overwhelmed by NATO and the EU, and we strengthen their economy too much for Russia to ever seriously consider wanting another Cold War.

I doubt anyone here thinks the contrary, my friend. We're discussing, however, what makes it wrong, why people do it, and why, for the love of God, it is considering a mental instability.

You're generalising, on a somewhat massive scale. I am a creationist. I'll admit that. The difference between me and you (other than the obvious ones), is that I not only accept but respect the views of others. I accept the Big Bang Theory. I accept the evidence for the Big Bang Theory. It doesn't bother me. It doesn't destroy creationism. Out of interest, have you ever read The God Dilusion? Because it seems your views are derived from Dawkins, who is, to put it lightly, a raving lunatic with nothing better to do with hevery minute other than to convince himself how untrue God is.

I disagree. As warandchaos and rokhed00 have previously discussed, peadophilia was once upon a time considered the 'norm', and everyone was 'a pervert then'. Why, you have to ask yourself? Were children invariably more attractive then then they are today? Or was it a medieval trait? No, it was simply because of society's perception of it. Now, I do agree with you to a point. If murder wasn't against the law, I doubt I'd go out and kill someone. And, your argument stands no ground against homosexuality. It may not be deemed unaccaetable by society, but seeing as it's so unnatural, how comes our moral tuition doesn't dislike it?

I can speak English, and am currently intermediate with german. I'd like to learn Italian.

Yes. An intelligent post. Yes! Another intelligent post. I've skimmed this thread, and these guys have understood what I'm trying to say.

What? Since when did having different sexual attrations ensure you are mentally unstable? I could cause harm. A gay man could cause harm. Harming someone you're attracted to isn't restricted to peadophilia. As I said earlier, that's only because society would destroy you. If having sex with a child became legal, no-one would turn a blind eye.

Why? They're both attractions which can't be helped. Who are you to say what's wrong and right? Morals are influenced by society; as I said earlier, if this was 40 years ago, you'd be saying the same thing about homosexuality. Moreover, if it was legal to be sexually attracted to children, no doubt your opinion would change. It would be deemed socially acceptable. Obviously, having sex with a child is wrong. There's no two ways about it. As previously stated, children are too young and don't understand (I don't understand it, their bodies aren't even developed, but it's isn't a choice). But just because I fancy mixed-race women, it doesn't mean I'm going to go out one day and forcibly have all mixed-race women I see have sex with me. I just won't. My point: Peadophilia is wrong. It is socially unacceptable, because society has branded it that way. But it isn't an inexcusable crime. Obviously, pursuing a peadophile's fantasies would be inexcusable. But merely being attracted is excusable. Peadophiles have as much control over their sexual attractions as they do over the weather.

It was forty years ago.

Yes, but their sexual attractions aren't hurting anyone unless they do go out and rape a child. Of the 10,000 peados in Britain, remember only a minority have ever acted on their feelings.

Well, the other day my Mum said 'He's got a lovely face, hasn't he' at the dinner table. It's always nice to know others find you good looking other than yourself.